CET cooling in line with solar model prediction

Yesterday, WUWT carried the headline: Coldest Spring In England Since 1891.  This essay offers what could be an explanation for it. Judge for yourself. – Anthony

Guest essay by David Archibald

Back in 2006, I published my first paper in climate science. That paper, Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response, predicted a temperature decline of 1.5°C over Solar Cycle 24. The model has become a little more refined since then, and further updated by the papers of Jan-Erik Solheim, Ole Humlum and Kjell Stordahl. Given that Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, the average temperature of Armagh in Northern Ireland and the CET is modelled to be 1.4°C colder over Solar Cycle 24 than it was over Solar Cycle 23. The model is based on the theory of Friis-Christensen and Lassen in their 1991 paper.

We are now four and a half years into Solar Cycle 24. So how is the prediction holding up? That is shown in Figure 1 following:

archibald_CET_fig1

Figure 1: CET Average Temperatures 1990 – 2025

Over Solar Cycle 23 the average temperature of the CET was 10.4°C so the model predicts that the average over Solar Cycle 24 will be 9.0°C. For the first four years of Solar Cycle 24, it has averaged 9.8°C. For the prediction to hold from here, the average temperature over the remainder of the cycle will have to be 8.7°C. The average temperature of 2010 was 8.8°C – only 0.1°C more than what is needed from here. With solar maximum of Solar Cycle 24 now past us, the prediction is in the bag.

Thanks to Richard Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram we can also predict average temperature over Solar Cycle 25. Interpreting that diagram, Solar Cycle 24 will be at least 16 years long. In turn, that means that the CET over Solar Cycle 25 will be a further 1.4°C cooler than the average over Solar Cycle 24. The following graph shows what that looks like:

archibald_CET_fig2

Figure 2: CET Average Temperatures 1960 – 2037

The CET record is now 354 years long. Has something like that happened before? Yes it has. Figure 3 following shows the CET record from 1659 and puts our Solar Cycle 24 and 25 predictions in that context:

clip_image006

Figure 3: CET Average Temperature 1659 – 2037

Some individual years have had averages colder than our Solar Cycle 25 prediction. The eleven years centred on 1695 had an average temperature of 8.1°C. This cold period killed off 30% of the population of Finland. The cold period centered on 1740 affected Ireland badly, killing several hundred thousand people – 20% of the then population. The better known potato famine was one hundred years later. There was a major volcanic eruption in 1739, Tarumai in Japan, that would have contributed to the cooling over 1740. Volcanic effects last only a couple of years though. There seems to have been a regime change with temperatures after 1740 about 1.0°C colder than the years before it. This suggests a solar origin. In fact the high temperatures up to 1740 look similar to the high temperatures of the late 20th century.

Perhaps a solar regime change is in train once again. Livingstone and Penn forecast a maximum amplitude for Solar Cycle 25 of 7 which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years. Figure 4 shows what that will look like:

clip_image008

Figure 4: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040

Despite what is happening to their climate, the UK is persisting with a project to convert their largest coal-fired power station, Drax in North Yorkshire, to burning woodchips to be imported from the United States. This is an attempt to placate the gods of climate at a capital cost for the conversion of £700 million ($1,070 million). This is laughable and very tragic at the same time. The whole circus will end in tears.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Not exactly.
CET is following progression of the N. Atlantic tectonics around Iceland, and in particular ocean warm/cold currents balance in the Denmark Strait.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

AnonyMoose

Should that first image’s “Solar Cycle 24 Average Temperature” be for Cycle 23?

Anon

You flipped your labels in Fig. 1. Swtich the “24” and “25”

Richard Bell
The other Phil

presumably potation ->potato

MattN

I assumed the 1.5C prediction was for the WHOLE PLANET, not just central England…

David, UK

“Potation famine?”

SIBEEN

None of this makes sense.
First you have :
We are now four and a half years into Solar Cycle 24. So how is the prediction holding up?
A few sentences later we have:
For the first four years of Solar Cycle 25, it has averaged 9.8°C.
Graph 1 shows the solar cycle average temperature to be in somewhere of the region of 1980, or perhaps, as the prediction is shown, centred around 2017.
REPLY:incorrectly placed labels on the graph and text have been fixed, refresh – Anthony

The incorrect positions of labels in graphs of figure 1 and 2 have been fixed, along with the text. Thanks to everyone who pointed it out.

herkimer

Richard Bell
Sounds like the UK energy secretary, Mr Davey thinks it is wrong to tell the truth to the Uk public about the coming cold weather . Even the Met Ofiice, a branch of his own government is saying there will be no warming for at least the next 5 years despite the rising co2 levels .

Well… This article does not make a great deal of sense. But the great news is that we will know the results of the prediction within a decade so…

herkimer

Solar sunspot activity is at the lowest level since 1900. During the decades of 1880, 1890 and 1900 the average sunspot numbers [NSO] were 45.2, 55.1 and 42.6. During 2000 decade they were 49.6. During the last 10 years the average sunspot number was 29.3. When the average solar level drops to about 40-50, cooler weather sets in. Although the exact mechanism is not yet understood, low solar sunspot numbers seem to correlate with low global surface temperatures especially when ocean and solar cycles are both in sync during declining or rising phases. Low solar cycles typically come in threes, so it is possible that low sunspot number may exist for several decades into the future .Typically these longer solar minimums are characterized by a long solar cycle followed by three low level sunspot cycles resulting in some 45 years of lower sunspot activity, like 1872 – 1917 and again 1790-1836. There are 11, 22, 70-80, 200 year and even longer solar cycles .
Current UK temperature trend is consistent with past similar solar cycle patterns as David points out

SIBEEN

SNIP With solar maximum of Solar Cycle 24 now past us, the prediction is in the bag.
What? Models are good, models are bad?

Eliza

Meanwhile DMI ice is showing a stall on melting at the north pole.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
But beware NORSEX has already delayed showing this for 2 days
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/
and Cryosphere today doesnt show it at all.
Be very very wary of ice “adjustments” at this time of year, especially if trending against the teams desires. Recommend freezing the web page with date stamp to compare later.

find a review of David’s 2006 paper here
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.
The abstract
Projections of weak solar maxima for solar cycles 24 and 25 are correlated with
the terrestrial climate response to solar cycles over the last three hundred years,
derived from a review of the literature. Based on solar maxima of approximately
50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to
2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum. To provide a baseline for
projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar cycle 25, data from five
rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to 2003 was averaged and
smoothed. The profile indicates that temperatures remain below the average over
the first half of the twentieth century
So,
A. his prediction was based on solar maximum being 50. Its greater than that
B. His prediction was for global.
Now, all you folks who complain that thousands of stations are not good enough?
“To provide a baseline for projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar
cycle 25 in 2024, data from five, rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to
2003 was averaged and smoothed. That is shown in Figure 3. Rural stations were
chosen so as to eliminate the possibility of contamination by the urban heat island
effect. The use of a 98 year long data set precludes the possibility of the data being
affected by short term local conditions. The smoothed average annual temperature of
the Hawkinsville (32.3N, 83.5W), Glennville (31.3N, 89.1W), Calhoun Research
Station (32.5N, 92.3W), Highlands (35.0N, 82.3W) and Talbotton (32.7N, 84.5W)
stations is representative of the US temperature profile away from the urban heat
island effect over the last 100 years (Data source: NASA GISS)”
Notice the lack of a representative sample of latitude, longitude, altitude, and distance from coast.
For a full read of the joke
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Archibald/Solar_Cycles_may07.pdf

John F. Hultquist

Parts of your text are confusing.
The wood chip part has been discussed here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/power-station-conversion-from-coal-to-woodchip-is-not-sustainable/
. . . with information from the Wall Street Journal.
This thing the English Government has for sourcing trees from North America has a long and unhappy history. So, I agree with the “end in tears” part.
http://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/283/page/546/display?use_mmn=

Looks like we are in for some additional cooling to make the “in the bag” prediction.

John F. Hultquist

Steven,
That link would be . . .
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

It was 63 degrees here in Texas when I got up this morning, and the day is beautiful. For a Texas June, that’s unreal, but very welcome! As things cool down, the weather down here is getting better and better. Texas just gets to be a nicer place to be every day!
(maybe file that under “it’s an ill wind….”

Not really much in favor of crystal balls that predict things with too fine a point on it. What I would accept is something along the lines of “conditions are set for temperatures to fall” but exactly how much they fall will depend on external variable factors. These factors include: the cosmic ray density of the space through which the solar system is passing, volcanic activity on Earth during the period, other things that change the levels of particulates in the air including pollution, fires, etc.
Also, I am curious if anyone ever studied the impact of the Kuwait oil well fires when Saddam Hussein ordered the oil wells there set fire. That should have dumped a huge load of black carbon into the atmosphere over a short period of time.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/humanimprints/images/himp_s16.jpg

MattN

“B. His prediction was for global.”
That’s what I thought I remembered too. We’re no where close to that prediction being true. This is almost as bad a using one tree in the Urals to make a hokey stick….

wobble

herkimer says:
June 3, 2013 at 7:55 am
When the average solar level drops to about 40-50, cooler weather sets in. Although the exact mechanism is not yet understood, low solar sunspot numbers seem to correlate with low global surface temperatures…

What are some of the leading hypotheses? It’s not reduced electromagnetic radiation output from the sun, right? Is it cloud formation? Other ideas?

Jdallen

And yet, from NOAA, we report the 13th warmest April, and 8th warmest ytd.
I would not hold my breath waiting for cooler temperatures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/04/

Rud Istvan

As has been pointed out up thread, the original paper (and therefore it’s predictions) apparently had some significant weaknesses (like not using CET then as now) which the poster says have been improved in unspecified ways. But it made testable predictions, as did the AR4 GCM ensemble. So far it is doing better than the IPCC. As yet that says nothing. Time will tell.
BUT at least this post has a plausible natural variability explanation in figure 4, which if accurate data (I haven’t bothered to double check, which one should always do in climate research–remember Mann and Marcott) even explains the two periods of temperature rise in the 20th century with a mid century pause. If the underlying theory predicting future solar cycle intensity holds, then to some degree the posts temperature prediction likely will also. That would be where to investigate plausibility.
By comparison, the GCMs have a proven and well documented moist bias, resulting in overstating both positive water vapor feedback and cloud feedback and therefore sensitivity. That moist bias is inherent in GCM inability at present grid scales to adequately model tropical convection (thunderstorms, and Lindzens adaptive iris hypothesis). So the temperature records of the past 12-15 years have already falsified them almost to the undeniable satisfaction of their most ardent AGW proponents.
This post may not be right either, but it is provably already better than the IPCC both in explanation and near term prediction.
Thanks for hosting such an interesting ‘paper’ Anthony.

Tom Wiita

One last label fix. Shouldn’t the label in Fig. 1 be “Solar cycle 24 (not 25) Average temp over rest of cycle.” ?
REPLY: It may very well be, unfortunately Mr. Archibald is out of touch due to time zone differences. – Anthony

dp

For a full read of the joke

A better joke comes from the IPCC who also claims global warming even though the globe hasn’t warmed (warming has been regional), and hasn’t necessarily warmed over a 24-hour day, for all or even most days of the year, nor evenly along decadal time periods. A better joke came from James Hansen who believes NYC will be under meters of sea water. Lewendowsky is quite the jokester as is Cook at SkS who likes to spin up really good tales.
I think it is not a bad prediction for David to claim global changes when the driver is the sun as that tends to affect all things and all places better than say El Niño/La Niña events or volcanoes. I’ll bet Archibald will be shown to be more accurate than James Hansen.
What do you predict?

Richard M

The cool down of global temperatures has occurred since the PDO went negative. I like to use 2005 as the date as that was ENSO neutral. So, there’s no need to invoke the sun as there’s a perfectly good mechanism right here on Earth. Given the previous swings we should see about a 1C drop in global temps with about .1C already in place. You can see temps peaking and then going down during the 16+ years of flat temperatures overall.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/to/trend
Does the sun have some impact? I suspect it does but that effect gets buffered into the oceans smoothing out what we see globally.

Looking at Figure 3, it is tough to identify anything like a “Dalton Minimum”
Maybe there is something you can tie to the Dalton if you just consider the lows. Consider the low spikes from 1780 to 1879. Now consider that only about 1/5 of these 100 years are unusually cold.
This punctuated cold might tie into legend well. What if the “little ice age” isn’t a period of broadly lower average temperatures as it is an average period punctuated with early and harsh winters intersperced with mild winters. The winters where the Themes freezes are remembered more than the ones where it doesn’t. The crop failures are remembered more than the average crops. These measures are non-linear with respect to temperature.
Have to remember that Figure 3 is still only yearly averages. The insight into the “Little Ice Age” might need to be seen at daily lows that kill crops and the early snows.

Kitefreak

Thank you very much Mr. David Archibald for that excellent essay. It concisely – and graphically – puts the last 30 years of ‘climate change’ into a clear historical perspective, easily understood by the layman.
I think you did a great job there and I may just ‘publish’ your essay on my work’s coffee room pinboard (with attribution of course). Thanks.

Mosher, the last 5 years in the UK are 0.82C colder than the previous 5 year period.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/last-5-years-in-uk-are-82c-colder-than-previous-5-years/

Steven Mosher says:
June 3, 2013 at 7:59 am
For a full read of the joke
dp says:
June 3, 2013 at 9:18 am
What do you predict?
Unless Pythia of Delphi is not your long lost granny, do not do predictions.
Do extrapolations !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
they are always correct, providing you update regularly.

Mardler

The UK Parliament is, right now, discussing the complete elimination of anything other than renewable and nuclear for electricity generation by 2030. This despite announcements that UK shale gas reserves are magnitudes greater than expected. The vote will almost certainly go against the government’s wish not to commit to such nonsense at this stage: prominent feeders at the trough of (green) grants are calling for the anti carbon vote. (Odd, given the recent lobbying scandal here!)
The Met Office agrees (indeed it advises government so) – read the underlying message here:-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/cold-spring-2013

Werner Brozek
Kelvin Vaughan

dp says:
June 3, 2013 at 9:18 am
What do you predict?
I predict the UK will be running power stations on shale gas not too far into the future.

steveta_uk

Sun spots are relatively cool areas on the sun’s surface, that look dark in contrast to the hotter surrounding areas.
So shouldn’t fewer sunsopts mean we get hotter?

Stephen Richards

Jdallen says:
June 3, 2013 at 9:00 am
And yet, from NOAA, we report the 13th warmest April, and 8th warmest ytd.
I would not hold my breath waiting for cooler temperatures.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for the truth from NOAA either.

If I understand Graph 3 correctly, it looks like you’re also predicting another Maunder Minimum during Cycle 25?

Bruce Cobb

Cooling does seem to be in the cards, possibly even in the LIA range. Sadly, children just aren’t going to know what skating on the river Thames is, due to faster river flow due to embankments built along its side.

TomB says:
June 3, 2013 at 10:12 am
If I understand Graph 3 correctly, it looks like you’re also predicting another Maunder Minimum during Cycle 25?

At this point one can’t predict with any skill past the next cycle and even that skill is limited. Witness the predictions for cycle 24 during cycle 23. Whether it will turn out to be more of a Dalton minimum with two weak cycles or more of a Maunder minimum with more, remains to be seen.

Doug Proctor

Although I agree in principle with what you are doing here, I consider the evidence to be for a Dalton, not a Maunder. The pattern to now does not support a radical collapse for 25. I don’t understand where you get that. Even were a Maunder to happen, we would need another step down from the apparent sunspot number of around 65.
Plus, the decrease in temperature as noted for specific land stations is not the same as for the world as a whole.
I see a drop to perhaps 1975 from today, based on sunspot activity. Less than that needs some other factor we are not seeing yet. In order to get to 1910 we would have to start at a lower level than today; to get to 1820 we would have to similarly be already as cold as it was in 1800.
I don’t understand your persistence in the large numbers for the world when your references are from land stations that are near multiples of the world.

Rob Potter

Correlations with historic sunspot numbers are a bit awkward as our ability to count them has gone up in recent decades. I would like to know if the “Wolff number” used here takes this into account. I remember our good Dr Svalgaard is always pointing out that we have not really been in a “grand maximum” recently and uses this to argue with our good Vukcevic that we can’t ‘blame’ recent warming on the sun.
However, I really don’t see how anyone can dispute the correlation between sun spot cycles and global temperatures over a pretty decent number of years no, so there does appear to be something to look at. Whether sunspots themselves, or the fact that numbers are a reflection of magnetic activity, have anything to do with climate is a good avenue for study and Svensmark at least provided a testable theory – which has not been been refuted by the CERN studies.
David Archibald has gone out an limb with a prediction in a testable time-frame and while he might be stretching a bit now to claim success, he has done better than some other forecasts (or whatever the heck we are supposed to call the IPCC crud). This doesn’t say anything about a mechanism, except that it has bugger all to do with mankind’s impact on some trace gases in the atmosphere.
Is this the whole story? Unlikely, but anyone who just opens their eyes to the data pretty much has to admit that there is a correlation here between solar activity and out temperature such that a good portion of climate change is due to something well beyond mankind’s control. So, with a chunk of the 0.7 (or so) increase since 1900 not due to us anyway, where does that leave climate sensitivity to CO2 levels?

BLACK PEARL

Kelvin Vaughan says:
June 3, 2013 at 9:47 am
I predict the UK will be running power stations on shale gas not too far into the future.
*****
Its a pity we couldn’t run them on all the the hot air & bullshit coming out of the Climate Change Committe Quango & C02 taxing Govt

Jim Arndt

I am sorry but it looks to be a mess to me. The CET to solar there is only a casual correlation at best. If it was better correlated then the high solar cycles of the mid 20th century would show a warming and it doesn’t. The year without a summer would be there and it shows very little cooling during that time and we know it to be world wide. The solar indices better match PDO than it does the CET. It is actually a good match but the problem is we only have good data for a few PDO cycles and the two may match simply because they are both on a decade type cycle. If you torture the data some more you might get a better result.

Stephen Rasey
You might be better able to see the ups and downs of the British climate, and whether it responds to solar cycles, by looking at my CET graph here. (pre 1659 my own reconstruction)
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph01.png
It shows decadal and 50 year periods within the context of glacier movements (the Blue line)
tonyb

herkimer

JIM ARDNT
“I am sorry but it looks to be a mess to me. The CET to solar there is only a casual correlation at best. If it was better correlated then the high solar cycles of the mid 20th century would show a warming and it doesn’t”
Jim
Take a look at the graph prepared by tonyb for CET. The various solar minimums and temperature troughs are quite evident . Also if you plot decadal sunspt numbers , decadal global ocean SST and decadal global temperatures from 1880- 2000 you will note that except for a short period in the 1950-1960, these all moved in unison.. In the peak solar period 1957, the ocean cycle was in the cool mode and thus reduced the extra solar warming effect .One needs to look at this on decadal basis as there are various lag factors and ocean currents involved . The extended cooling periods during these solar minimims results from the extended periods of low solar activity.
Typically these longer solar minimums are characterized by a long solar cycle followed by three low level sunspot cycles resulting in some 45 years of lower sunspot activity, like 1872 – 1917 and again 1790-1836.

starzmom

Here in our neck of the woods (Kansas City) we just finished the fourth coolest spring on record. Not that NWS has noted it yet, of course. And the first few days of June are cool too. Set a low temp record this morning in fact.

jimarndt

herkimer
“Also if you plot decadal sunspt numbers , decadal global ocean SST and decadal global temperatures from 1880- 2000 you will note that except for a short period in the 1950-1960, these all moved in unison..”

Yes, because you have decade cycles (i.e. solar cycle, AMO and PDO) and these may only be in-sync and does not mean one is caused by the other. You need to show how this happens and the mechanism. I am a solar advocate but we can’t just say so without a mechanism. just saying.

Margaret Hardman

“With solar maximum of Solar Cycle 24 now past us, the prediction is in the bag.”
It appears that the Sun is not playing by the rules. A second maximum is now expected later this year. How does that affect any predictions?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

the prediction is in the bag“. That’s an absurd statement. The situation is that the prediction is, so far, badly wrong, but there are grounds for thinking that there is still a possibility that it may eventually prove to be correct.

J Martin

Mardler said “The UK Parliament is, right now, discussing the complete elimination of anything other than renewable and nuclear for electricity generation by 2030.”
Temperatures haven’t risen for over 16 years and yet the members of the UK idiot and moronic fool club are debating whether to destroy the UK economy in order to achieve an unmeasurable difference in global temperatures. Oh joy.
That may well destroy whatever vestiges of industry the UK has left, and if too great a reliance on wind takes hold may also start to kill off the UK service industries and financial sector as they relocate to countries that provide a stable electricity supply.
Though ironically it may work out to be accidentally a good thing, since as wind can’t deliver, then they’d be forced to build more nuclear, which could well prove useful if temperatures fall to 2030 as may prove to be the case. With some fracking thrown in for good measure.

Theodore White

There have only been a few forecasters who were able to state that the world was heading toward global cooling, and that global warming is caused by the condition of the Sun.
The great majority of climate scientists bought hook, line and sinker into the ‘man-made global warming’ scam, along with governments, the complicit mainstream media, Internet climate hacks and tens of millions of people who don’t know even known the basics of how the Earth’s climate actually functions.
The Earth can never become a greenhouse. Moreover, fewer seem to know that carbon dioxide is a thermostat gas that ‘cools.’ The fact that the IPCC< and it's so-called '97% of all climate scientists' believed that the global warming was caused by man tells you everything you need to know about their expertise as forecasters. Most of the major climate centers do not and cannot forecast the weather, nor the climate. And they have proven that fact repeatedly.
Those who get caught up in 'predictions' often do not know the first thing about the systems applied to 'predict' while many meteorologists play the 5-10 forecast as the height of the science of forecasting; while as an astrometeorologist I forecast over months, years and decades.
But time marches on, and the world comes closer to a new climate reality that's been forecasted – and that is global cooling.
All the hyperbole, climate science careerism, ideology and sarcasm will not alter the laws of physics that determine our planet's climate. We are heading toward a new neo-boreal climate era, and nothing will stop it except the condition of the Sun.
These are the years to prepare for global cooling. Lots will change according to my forecast, so it's best to just get on with it. The 'warmists,' as they are called, are already feeling the 'chill' in the air by means of the cold, wet spring and increasing signs of global cooling.
While many still sit on the fence, waiting for their 'predictions' to come true, what is happening is that the global cooling I forecasted to come by astronomic means, years ago, is now closer to us and preparations have to be made for what will be 36 years of global cooling, according to my forecast.